that in the 1920s as sports figures and golfers and baseball players and movie stars became famous. over against that, we have this reaction to that revolution and it was described in an odd word that was created at the beginning of the decade by warren harding in 1920 when he said we want to get back to what he called normalcy. there is no such word and he was the first republican i guess to make that word. ..
that was a reaction to the theological changes taking place in the mainstream protestantism but it became also a cultural thing. it was something for people to get involved in and i think it is hard for us to imagine today but there was such a pervasive movement in the 1920's that the famous sage of baltimore a man by the name of h.l. mencken, the baltimore journalist said in the middle of the 1920's if he were to keep an egg from pullman car anywhere in america you are about to hit a fundamentalist in the head. there were millions of people who embraced it said it was much more than religious. was a cultural reaction to the way things had changed. another movement that was very big at least for a time in the 1920's and certainly even here in the state of texas was the ku
klux klan. it had seen a revival. there had been many manifestations even up until our time. many of them marginal but the most significant emergence of the particular movement were of course during the reconstruction with the original plan, but in about 1915, there was a regrouping of the klan and by the time we come to the 1920's, this group very patriotic, very pro-american, very anti-immigrant, antiforeigners kind of thing really takes hold in the culture and there was a commonality here of the fundamentalism and the ku klux klan. this is something the evangelicals -- and i am one -- have a difficult time acknowledging and one of the reasons i think they've had a difficult time repeating it is because they've had a difficult time acknowledging it was in fact a part of the past.
now one book tv james delingpole argues that the modern environmental movement is made up of socialists and communists whose main goal is to rule the world. it's about 50 minutes. >> good afternoon now and welcome to the heritage foundation. as director of lectures and seminars, it's my privilege to welcome everyone to the louis lerman auditorium and of course welcome those that joined on the heritage of.org website as well as those who will be joining us on c-span on a future occasion. we do ask everyone in house to make that courtesy check that sells phones have been turned off as we proceed. always good that the speaker does that especially. [laughter] and we will post the program within 24 hours on the web site for everyone's future reference. hosting the discussion this morning and introducing the special guest is make, a policy
analyst in the thomas wrote institute for economic policy studies. he focuses on energy, environmental and regulatory issues and he also examines energy prices and other economic effects of an environmental policy and regulations, particularly looking at climate change or cap-and-trade legislation, and he articulates of course the benefit of the free-market environmentalism. he's appeared on many radio programs locally as well as serving as an associate for the charles cook charitable foundation prior to joining us a heritage. please to join me in welcoming my colleague, nick. [applause] >> thank you, john and the jewel for coming today for what surely promises to be an educational and exciting ease and with our speaker. learning about these issues and studying them for awhile and as the global recession hit, you've seen a shift in the green movement away from warning about
the catastrophic consequences of climate change and really shifting towards a green jobs position and moving towards a clean energy economy. and these policies have such far-reaching implications of american households and businesses and to rest on a shaking set of assumptions about the scientific consensus when it comes to global warming. and that's probably putting it lightly. i think our speaker will be more blunt about this is troubling. and the policies them endlessly really. you have policies that artificially drive energy up so people will use less. biofuel mandates, energy efficiency regulations that restrict consumer choice, and ignore the trade-off that consumers make when purchasing appliances or light bulbs or vehicles. all these policies fundamentally
alter the system of the free enterprise, and they all have the underlying goal of reducing the carbon dioxide emissions of greenhouse gas emissions and that's just scratching the surface. when you dig a little deeper and learn about the climate science and the special-interest politics that goes on behind the political shift in the policies, that's when you're always began to bulge and your blood begins to boil and i don't think that there's many people that have done as much digging as our guest, james delingpole, has. james is a british writer, a journalist and blogger who helped expose the climate scandal and is the author mike of numerous books including welcome to obamaland, i see your future and it doesn't work, and 365 ways to drive a little crazy. so if you are looking for a way to drive a little crazy each day, james is your guy and is the book to read. in 2005 he received the charles
douglas home memorial trust award and in 2010 he won the prize for on-line journalism. and on his website, jamesdelingpole.com he knows he's a fan of sharks and films about evil vampires. so we can have those discussions may be another day have james back again but today he's joining today to discuss his new book, "watermelons: the green movement's true colors." with that, please join me in welcoming james delingpole to the podium. [applause] >> thank you. if you want me to talk about great white sharks and salem's law ibm -- thank you for the small government and liberty, before we took more about my book, "watermelons," i would like to show you a little film.
>> there is an idea in the and i would like to run by you. everyone starts cutting their carbon emissions by 10% said keeping the planet safe for everyone and this hasn't got to be a huge thing but i would love it if you and your family. >> like what sort of thing? >> like taking your next holiday by train instead of writing or by teeing energy-saving light bulbs. >> [inaudible] >> fantastic to read it would be great to get a sense of how many of you might do this. fantastic. it's absolutely fine. it's your own choice.
thank you so much and i will see you all tomorrow. just before you go i just need to press this little button here now everybody please remember to read chapter five and six on volcanoes. >> just want to check on that has brilliant ideas, lots of you to cut down emissions by ten per cent. a quick show of hands everyone that wants to get involved. great. that's everybody. just the record, no pressure those who are not quite convinced of it yet. no problem, your choice. those of you planning something here or at home should get working on it, and gorgeous. those of you who aren't -- have
>> hundreds of thousands of people, schools, businesses, movie stars, sculptures, presidents and government all toggling climate change in more than 40 countries. care to join us now? no pressure. >> what are you thinking for 1010 yourself? >> i thought to doing the voice-over that was my contribution. >> absolutely. no pressure. >> okay. thank you. >> so today's talk is dedicated to the memory of philip and tracy, the kids who stood up
against the ego fascist schoolteacher and died for their cause. how many of you have seen that video before? about one-third of you. when people see that video for the first time, often their reaction is that it must have been made by people like me to summarize the eagle fascist leanings of the green movement. you may be surprised to learn that that film was made to recruit people to the cause of environmentalism. it was made entirely without irony. and you can see the production values of that film pretty high. it would have been expensive to make. the people taking part in it, the footballs' you don't recognize and he plays for the france and england and providing the sound track at the end, you
had gillian anderson from the x files, schoolteacher, and you had a film directed and written by richard curtis is britain's b5 most bankable comedy director. he directed films like nottinghill with julia roberts, four weddings and a funeral, he co-wrote a blackout series. this guy is big. the campaign was sponsored by organizations like sony, 02, a mobile phone company. it was endorsed, the campaign was endorsed by all three main political parties it had the enthusiastic endorsement of the current prime minister david cameron and at no stage during the making of that film did anyone start to think wait a
second are we really saying that people who don't believe in the pherae of anthropogenic global warming deserved to die? but that is kind of what they were saying and i think to appreciate the sinister absurdity of this u.s. yourself imagine any other minority group. imagine if they decided the best idea gays would be to execute them are muslims or disabled people. yet it seems that according to the people who made the video people who do not believe in man-made global warming or so beyond the pale of reasonable human discourse that the only just and fair penalty for them albeit in may, the fashion is
dead. [laughter] how did we reach this pass? how did we get into this mess? i contend in my book "watermelons" that the man-made global warming industry, and it is an industry, a cost the industry represents the biggest outbreak of the mass hysteria in history it is also probably the most expensive, i will correct the, certainly the most expensive out of the mass hysteria of history and the questions i sent out to answer this question is if it is not true, if it is a mess, climate change, manmade climate change comer catastrophic manly climate
change why is it that so many people think otherwise? how can it be that we are in a situation where politically we don't like david cameron and barack obama find themselves in bed with that eco loons and activists like george ed begley jr., in bedle so with rent seeking him carvin traders like al gore, in bedle so with oil companies like exxon and bp but has made no mistake big oil puts far, far more money into of the global warming industry than it does funding the skeptics contrary to what you might read in with the blogosphere and an
australian lager some of you may be familiar she researched how much had been spent on the man-made global warming industry since 1989 the u.s. government, the european union and so on have spent approximately five times the manhattan project funding research into the man-made global warming. now there is a lot of money. people sometimes ask me why would the scientists sheet the data? why would they lie to us i can answer that in three words. follow the money. it is the most expensive scientific project in history
we've spent five times that. if you are a scientist and you want to research the habits of grace grove for not going to get your funding if you are a scientist and one to research how this habit of grayson has been affected by the climate change you will get the funding and i would like to speak for a moment this word that is constantly used against people like me. i'm not denying that climate changes, nobody i know is denying that climate change it has done over the millennia does all the time and the medieval war period we have the rahman before that where it is warmer than it is now. we of the little ice age where we are emerging from the ice age
and climate change over time so the idea that anyone is denying climate change as a reality is nonsense. we all believe in climate change but what we don't believe and this is where the ideas get completed it is a cheat the idea that climate change when the use the phrase they won't use sub lemony man-made climate change and this is where we do dispute it, those of us on my side of the argument. catastrophic man-made climate change come if you look at the intergovernmental reports over the last 20 years the ipcc has been increasingly shrill and its
prognostications of man-made climate dumoulin, but in that period, no convincing evidence is being produced to show that human influence on climate is significant or dangerous that would all go to try it stopped or flattened out over ten years ago now and i think we need to remember if we look at human history and look at what man has done in times of cooling as opposed to in times of warming the society and civilization flourishes in the times of
forming its for warm weather it's not that we can't close to the cocoa and the climate we are very adaptable we have igloos and stuff like that as i was telling you earlier i would like to live in california. there's a reason i'd like to live in california it's not the political climate, it is the weather climate it's nice and warm and we are drawn to the warmer weather. the warm whether souls to of our main problems, how to heat ourselves and feed ourselves in the periods of warmth you can grow things like wheat at higher latitudes to help feed the world. so the first part of my book watermelon's covers the science of climate change but i'm not a scientist and this is in the part that really interests me about the whole debate. it's where these ideas come
from. it's the cecile politics of climate change if you like if the science is flawed, how come so many people believe in it, and i think one reason is that is built into our dna is this in a catastrophe i think every generation believes that somehow it will be the last, that it will be the one that so shapes the world that it will destroy it through its own evil and if you look at religion through the ages, what it is about in one way or another is atoning of the fence to try to appease the gods. the aztecs dealt with this by sacrificing people and sucking
the blood out of their hearts, they're still beating hearts in medieval times the question tennyson's by wearing a and today in the modern movement they do it by imposing taxes on flights and forcing everyone to use crappy flittering yellow light bulbs that give you a headache. >> there's this thing we must also punish ourselves to make for a world a better place, and it is my contention in the book which may initially quite seem controversy about the facts bear this out that actually you don't have to make a choice between either the environment for
economic growth. on the contrary, israel environmentalism and economic growth go hand in hand. i will give you one example of this. at the height of the british empire when i might tell you the tax rate was about 10%, go figure when the british economy was thriving, the river that runs through london was volatile stagnant like washington and the summer it would grow putrescent in the summer months that it was known as the great stink. and as people got off the train on the railway stations in the river at the nauseating stench
why does this no longer happen? it's because the victorians under that low tax regime of 10% or so had enough money to invest on building an effective sewage system. they built the embankment. they could do this because they didn't have the big government or the epa for the equivalent imposing the tax and regulation to make the river cleaner. on their own accord they thought hang on a second. we don't want this river to small disgusting. we kind of like it to be clean. we don't like vomiting when we get off the train because that's not nice so what we do about it? i know, let's build a sewage system. and this is what they did. nowadays when you get off the
train you don't throw up. the river is actually much cleaner than it was in the victorian times. again the river was cleaner than it was probably 300 years ago. why? because as economies grow more mature, so people can spend money making the world cleaner, better, more frequent. you look at the great environmental disasters of the last century where did there really bad stuff happen? it happened and the soviet union. it's happening now. in north korea, in china. this is what happens when people have their economic freedoms constrained by big government.
so what my book really is about in the end is the plea for the more rational discourse about the environment. i would like to stress in case there are any people who think i'm one of those evil nasty people who doesn't care about the polar bear, i would like to point out that actually i'm kind of a nature boy. i love long country walks in beautiful countryside where the views aren't spoiled by wind farms. i like going looking at animals, i like looking at birds. one of the great propaganda victories that is being scored by the green movement is to portray the world in which there are two kinds of people. on the one hand there were the
caring and sharing it bunny hugging types who are the members of the greenpeace and who care about nature and on the other hand there were evil catalysts with big fat cigars in their mouth and dollar signs on their suits like capitalists do and say i want to destroy the world. nobody, believe me, nobody looks at a beach and think some you know what would really improve that? if it were covered with an oil slick and maybe a few dying pelicans and the sea otters going "heh, heh, heh." we all desire a free, fresh, happier more fragrant more of
sea ottery world. we like that kind of stuff. but we can achieve that world without bombing our economy back to the dark ages in the name of saving it. there is a mentality i think in the green movement in order to save the city we must destroy it. and i think that theory is wrong and self-destructive. i think it is not borne out by the fact. and if you want to discover more about this, you can ask me lots of interesting questions, and b, read my book because it is bloody good. thank you. [applause] >> thank you, james. we are going to open up for questions now.
three simple rules. one, we for the microphone because we are taking this. number two, state your name and affiliation and number three, leave it to a question and not a diatribe as to why james is either right or wrong. with that i will let you dictate. >> no violence. i don't want any attacks or anyone trying to rip my clothes off and have sex with me or anything like that either, okay? now your questions, please. >> don't be scared. yes, you, sir. >> i'm with the tax foundation, and i read the book and you sound very similar but he considers himself a warmer which is that some global warming but it is probably going to be beneficial and mild, so do you think that he is right or wrong? >> i think it is easy to get bogged down in stuff that one can't really answer because nobody knows.
people consider themselves lukewarm. they consider it is not their position to argue about the science. i think it is easy in this debate to get bogged down in the kind of an esoteric stuff about the future based on your particular theory. i don't know. even richard doesn't really know what is going to happen to the climate. so i prefer to concentrate on the things that i know about. i read books, i can see stuff happening, but i wouldn't want to prognosticate too much. i spoke to a lot of scientists at last year's heartland conference and they seem to be very much of the view that we are entering a cooling period and the specific decades of oscillation. it tends to move in a 30 year
cycles. i think what is clear from the evidence so far is that yes we are moving gently. i hope to carry on warming gently because actually as i said earlier, the warming is better than cooling. cooling is what we must year. it will only take a couple of degrees to drop in the global average man temperature for the reproduction to be jeopardized. you know, why is the arab spring happening at the moment? is it because the watch south park? is it because of the outpouring of the, you know, liberalism and the east? no, it's because of the same thing that always causes
revolutions like the french rick symbol. bread shortages, why are there bread shortages of the moment? can anyone tell me? it's one word and begins with be swedes of the world's productive agricultural land are being taken up for use on bhatia fuel. why is the biofuel business going? will because farming interests are cozying up to the big government and because environmentalists have told them that the biofuel is the way of saving the world. they're actually destroying the world. taliban to answer your question in a kind of roundabout way. yes, usurp. >> i just wanted to ask a little bit about pollutants from health i think there is some documentation about this and that is all tied into this.
the fact that there is air pollution, particles in the air and the effect on children, children's health and things of that nature. so if you would comment on this aspect of it. >> yes. >> there is a cafe that i go to when i stay with my brother in the hills and it is run by a kind of very keen environmentalist and on a wall of the cafe is a picture of the cooling towers with this white stuff coming out. and you can bet your bottom dollar that once you find the scent if not more of the people who come into the cafe and look at that picture and think pollution, the stuff coming out of those cooling towers is water
vapor. i think people have a completely false idea about what is pollution and what isn't. the epa believes that co2 is a pollutant. co2 is plant food. it is not a pollutant. not for a second what i dispute that we need to limit pollution wherever we can. no, as i said earlier we want a clean environment. but i would contend that the way to achieve that is through our natural human instinct. obviously occasionally you need the law to stop people come to stop businesses dumping for example when the businesses use africa as a dumping ground to
consider that part of my world. i like africa. i want to go there on holiday. i don't want it to be toxic. obviously you need to regulate against that kind of thing but i think we over regulate. through the very interesting story we talk about, quite interesting which itel in my book about julian simon, you know the do missileer he was known as. he was the great sparring partner of paul alexey and he once won a famous bet. julian simon was once in london talking about the environment, and the war went on before him and showed him what a dramatic improvement to the air quality the introduction of the clean
air act in london had had, and julian simon, what a master stroke of this was, produced his own goes back much earlier showing their quality has been in purging anyway. the pollution was going down quite naturally through the natural economic process. this year nine mentioned before to make things clean. there is this fantasy that environmentalists nurture that without them, without their intervention the world would go to hell in a handcart. i would contend that this is very much not the case. i hope i kind of answered the question. yes? >> the natural center for public
policy research. can you tell us something about the shift in public opinion if any in britain in the wake of the climategate scandal which showed massive collusion and corruption across the board along those scientists who work recipient of the largesse to carry out the climate research? is the environmental movement in britain and a result of that could you elaborate on that? >> i'm glad you asked that question. yes. the brilliant thing about the climategate is that afterwards al gore said he was very sorry for being wrong and stupid about everything and resigned as the head of the ipcc. greenpeace disbanded, the epa stopped regulating. none of these things happened. they ought to have happened because as you say quite correctly, with the climategate
e-mail showed is that the scientists were very hard on the ipcc which president obama has described as the gold standard of the scientific understanding of global warming for beating not like scientists or dispassionate seekers of truth, but more like activists. i know of many people who were previously at bostick or even on the other side of the argument for me shifted as a result of climategate. it was the game changer in the way that for many americans 9/11 is the thing that turned them from liberalism to the more conservative views and the opinion polls suggest the public
is growing more skeptical in britain and america and has been since the climategate. they are sick of being fed this propaganda and the increasingly sick of the tax rises and regulations which are being imposed on them in the name of this seemingly nonexistent problem. but the problem is not where the public is going to read it is where the political class is going where the environmental movement is going. that video i showed you in the beginning i think is indicative of that. rather than admit that they've got things wrong, environmentalists are growing more shrill and dangerous that preparing their lined you know this talk of the ocean
acidification for example is like okay maybe co2 doesn't make the world get hotter but it does make the oceans more acidic and that is bad, too. they are constantly looking for new ways of justifying their position. and i fear that this is going to be a long hard battle to counter. they are not going to surrender very easily. yes? >> sean kennedy, u.s. senate. can i ask you to step back and look at alarmism not just in global warming but the human interest in the millennialism, what exactly is the response to the next alarm, how do we inject skepticism early enough? we were behind the curve on this
and they got the jump on us after the scandals have we seen public opinion turned back. >> you are absolutely right. i will give you a classic example of what you have just said. shale gas is the energy revolution that is going to transform all of our lives. it's cheap, it's hugely abundant across the world, it is relatively -- if you believe in such things is relatively low carbon, it is relatively environmentally friendly, and it is available in places which aren't evil like poland flexible. one of the big problems in the world now is that our energy
supplies are in places like the middle east, which is -- places like russia that have massive supplies come places like france and nuclear that's really scary, right. [laughter] so, shale gas is like a dream come true because what we want is cheap and abundant energy. in the stark economic times we need cheap energy. i feel we can all agree on that. yet the four most existence of the gas last year for goodness sake this guy, josh fox makes this film called gas land showing that when somebody turns on the tappan colorado fawcett,
methane comes out. how did he get in there so soon? they are very, very quick to get their propaganda. i think there is in the conservative disposition i consider myself a libertarian, classical, liberal, whatever. i think the reason of this position and this slight tendency towards the complacency because we believe that the world shuttle level logic or the empiricism we look at what works and what is true and therefore things will take care of
themselves because that is logical and right. their philosophy is the green movement and the progressive is about denying reality. it's about winning the argument not through facts and logic and open debate blood to the kaput closing down the argument and propaganda. so if there is ever going to be a solution to your problem because the other side, the fight and dirty year than we do. so we've just got to be -- we just have to hope that in the end a kind of justice will prevail. i am seeing that for example in the collapse of the carbon trading market.
al gore, goldman sachs set up the chicago trading exchange. i think a couple of years ago carbon, co2 or plant food as you and i might call it was trading at $7 a ton. i think last year just before the carbon trading exchange closed it was at 7 cents a ton. the carbon trading market is tanking now and would suggest back to the markets that is a good thing that there is a kind of natural justice system which cancels out all of this rent seeking stuff. yes, please. ask a question. >> [inaudible]
i just have a quick question to dovetail with you said. are you being lamb pulled in britain on the programs to try to marginalize your views? >> i had the university report me to the press complaints commission which is kind of a big deal. they are trying to destroy my career by getting me into trouble. i do have a kind of sassy style. i don't take too many prisoners. i can be a bit crude. but i do at least like to have a basis to my argument. there's an example in my book to read al gore, it would be in portland, oregon, also delightfully that he was caught
out in this way and that he is not to be trusted and stuff that is not the basis of my argument stuff el gloor. it's the cherry on the missing on the cake. my problem is he is distorting the evidence that he is a rent seeking businessman. that is my problem with al gore. the way the other side treats people like me, they don't even want to engage with our argument they just want to destroy us and any means will do. christopher has a medical conditions that is not a reason his argument shouldn't be trusted it just means she has a disease. but the fact that, you know, i once read that i had manic depression so i'm kind of mentally ill so you've got the
university using public money essentially to launch the case against me. the bbc, which has been one of the arts advocates for the global warming. it is not a natural party in this debate. the bbc teamed up with the new president of the society and as a nobel prize-winning geneticist to conduct these essentially what was a hit job on me it was a natural science documentary exploring the pros and cons of global warming. so what actually emerged in this, and this is not, you know, i'm not saying i'm annoyed by this. this is sent me being dispense if i'm just telling you what
happened that through the documentary was the only one who doesn't believe in the man-made global warming is essentially antiscience and ignorant and if you don't believe in the man-made global warming, you couldn't the same category as people who think that aids isn't caused by the hiv virus and the same category of people who destroy the fields of crops. it was a complete smear job and it was constructed in that way and i was very naive to take part in it but i'm a kind of naive and trusting died when i was approached by the bbc - hang on the second i'm going to get a nobel prize winner who is going to come to my house and they have assured me i can show you the e-mail they assured me this guy hadn't made up his mind of what he thought about global warming. he really wanted to find of the truth. he was a neutral party in all of
this. i thought great this will be my chance to put out were side of the argument across. i had done my research what i would have realized is that a year before he made the documentary, hosted a dinner for the rockefeller foundation at his house in new york, attended by george soros, have you heard of him, and ted turner, to name of the two. i can tell you that george soros and ted turner are not neutral parties in the state debate. this is how they operate. i am glad to be able to put this on the record because i think that there is a sort of name on the internet that he was exposed as a scientific by the nobel
prize-winning scientist. well, his field is genetics. i read english literature at oxford i am not ashamed to say. if i were going to make a documentary about dale wolf i wouldn't consult somebody in the virginia woolf department. somebody in the va will study department isn't necessarily going to be able to save the credentials of. scientists are not of the same. scientists do not all know everything, in fact science has become increasingly diverse and lobsters. it's about speciality. so why don't really think that they are not in a position to make announcements of what is happening in the field of climate science, which let me say is one of the more dotted of the sciences anywhere.
it's more of a social science and hard science. thank you for that. >> i think we are running up against the deadline. please join me in thinking james for his presentation and congratulating him on his new book. [applause] >> for more on the james delingpole and his work, visit jamesdelingpole.com. >> what are you reading this summer? book tv wants to know. your book is titled
strangers. what inspired you to write this book? >> when i began working for the historical study it was probably one of the topics that i got the most interesting and questions about and even installed today i can just kind of tell what it meant to people, how important it was to people and the timing also worked on because it was undergoing a renovation and that is close to being done today so the interest was a fever pitch. >> can you describe the randhurst shopping center as well as its importance to chicago and its suburbs beginning in the early 1960's? >> it was definitely a big first. there was a lot of unique features and a really hadn't seen shopping centers built on such a grand scale and with so much attention to the detail and religious kind of imposing architecture. it was very important to the northwest suburbs those kind of a recognition of the fact that this area was the kind of
boomtown and just growing so rapidly and one of the more important areas of chicago at that time. the case i need in the bucket is the first shopping center building and what we would know of as malls today and it's kind of a supposed to be a case study to sort of talk about all the shopping centers and malls and kind of hell they developed. the best analogy i use is randhurst didn't open a floodgate it was the floodgate. >> randhurst shopping center architect has been the father of the shopping mall. what features or design elements were considered to randhurst at the time of its construction? >> well, victor was just an amazing story and there's a wonderful biography about him where i obtain most of my information called the small maker. he was a refugee who came from vienna in 1939 to america tie and was said that one of the things that influenced him the
most was the central park and broadway. and there was kind of a juxtaposition about things and by the public free of charge was used by the public definitely as kind of a set of capitalism and the mission if you will so he kind of made these elements in the shopping center designed for and hearst was arguably his greatest achievements and a realization and a unique feature of it was its triangular design according to the company promotions such as to minimize the distance between the stores and the anchor stores in the center and also just the amount of the sculptor of artwork and the aesthetic pieces you literally invest hundreds of thousands of dollars into the public art. it was definitely supposed to be a public space in addition to the buying and selling that would be going on.
>> what made randhurst and local destination attraction in chicago there in the 1960's and 70's? he mentioned public art, the size and scope of it put anything in particular that really drew the visitors to it? >> i would say building on the same size of it, the 200-ton dome we're now if you visit it wouldn't appear to be a very impressive place but in 1962 it was literally making headlines all over the country, and again the public art is a big draw as well as the sheer size of it. estimate does the political establishment in chicago support or promote the development of the shopping mall? >> i didn't really find much about the political establishment in chicago. i would say if it happened at all it with someone to give its
blessing but i can tell you the political stubble shredded this very supportive of it and it's by far the biggest taxpayer and allowed not prospect of the time of the construction to ride ahead of all of the other competing suburbs in this area to really provide a lot of services to people and to lower the property tax which was a big point for anyone looking to move to the suburbs and you have the choice of dozens of suburbs and the prospect was kind is able to stand out because of the presidents parameters. >> what if any does the what field wall have on the randhurst shopping center as well as surrounding chicago community is beginning in 1971 and for the remainder of the 1970's and into the 1980's as well? >> welcome it kind of serves as the foil or the of allin in the book. it was built about 5 miles away
from randhurst, and it wasn't just what field that had an impact it was the malls and shopping centers springing up everywhere in the 70's and 80's. what my research has led me to is going back to the biggest taxpayer because of the additional revenues the other communities solvency and they were for lack of a better term very jealous so their solution was to build their own shopping centers and their own malls with their huge likely field or smaller developments it was essentially the move to try to keep their sales tax revenue and citizens shopping in their own communities. >> were there any efforts by the randhurst shopping center with thought increased competition in the surrounding communities to reinvent itself with there being
took over the center on the date it's a and there's a lot of language in the book with a kind of are critiquing these original 60s design and going on about how outdated and terrible it is. i think that represents this retail and changes that need to be made and kind of what is in fashion now will not be in fashion tomorrow, but may in fact be in fashion again 10 years from now. >> host: thank you premature your time. >> guest: my pleasure. >> we asked, what are you begin this summer? here's the you had to say:
>> this weekend "the communicators," two members of the european parliament talk about differences between european and american internet policy and europe's approach to internet development, privacy and technology. >> host: well, this is "the communicators" on c-span, were each week we look at telecommunications policy and this weeks we are pleased to be joined by two members of the european parliament to look at
how the e.u. approaches telecommunications policy. let me introduce them to you. first, we have a marietje schaake. she represents the netherlands in the european parliament and is a member of the party, alliance of liberals and democrats for europe. we also joining us james elles, a member of the european parliament from the united kingdom, was a member of the conservative party. to both of you, welcome to "the communicators." we appreciate it. also joining us is can hart of the "politico," whenever regulars. tell us why are you in town this week? in washington? >> guest: eye and a number of my colleagues from europe in the business and academic community are here as part of the atlantic we can engage her counterparts in the number of key issues we think will be critical for our future by the transatlantic economy can be competitive in the future, dealing with
financial convergence, demography, death and deficits problems across both sites the atlantic, but how you cope with increasing data. digital agenda, research innovation come all the subjects are we hope by the end of the week to have a number of good ideas which we can deepen over the months ahead. >> host: marietje schaake, if he would, overall, how does the e.u. approach telecommunications policy, a 27 member nations and how is it different from how the u.s. approaches telecommunications policy in your view? >> guest: one of our main challenges is to make sure your digital market gets harmonize. both friends or critics of the e.u. think harmonized market has brought us stability and profit and a healthy economy overall. but online, this is not the same. the fragmentation we find in europe's digital market and digital sphere more broadly is what distinguishes it from the u.s., where it is actually one
market. and i think we need to overcome the fragmentation in europe to be competitive in the world and provide for the best services for consumers, citizens, artists to share their creations and should make the best of what europe has to offer in terms of online content as well. >> host: mr. alice, you are a founder of the internet foundation as well. what would you say is one of the biggest challenges facing telecommunications in europe? and what do you do differently than the u.s. does? >> guest: i like to tune in on the same wavelength as marietje because they may simply put him in 18 centuries of railways. the 20th century is the airline. twenty-first century is the digital infrastructure we need to see asian making huge strides, singapore, south korea. money is no object to get the highest speeds of broadband.
census both the united states and europe and the common ground as we don't have leadership necessary to understand the real importance of having a universal access of information and of infrastructure to people across the land. so there was a conference at the woodrow wilson center yesterday, where there is an estimate to get the digital access for everybody coming into some of 500 billion. what congress is out there is so billion. where's the rest of the money coming from to make the infrastructure where? in europe, we now have someone responsible for the digital agenda as it's known. do you see reluctance of governments to invest in infrastructures, but we desperately need the infrastructure so as to be able to be competitive in the global market. >> host: kim hart of "politico." >> guest: thank you for joining us. i want to jump in with the netherlands is doing on the net neutrality fun.
recently, the country with the first to kind of take net neutrality forward npm mobile telephone operators from blocking certain services are paying extra fees for that. can you tell us a little how that law came into being and what it means going forward for the country and e.u. at large? >> guest: what we saw was actually a shareholders meeting, where one of the board members of the largest telecom provider called kp and the sort of bragging to shareholders that they were able to use inspections, monitoring of the traffic of their users to identify whether voice over ip services such as skype were used in order to make sure those services were not competing with their own business model for sending text messages and using telephone survey says we commonly know it. and while that might in a great shareholders to protect a certain business model, this was not something the users in the netherlands appreciated because
they thought a potentially free of cost service was actually denied to them. in principle, the belief is that transparency of knowing what telecom providers do in terms of monitoring traffic or blocking, consumers have a choice to move. so competition could be a solution to keep the open internet news show, to have net neutrality safeguarded. but he was soon discovered competitors also use the same techniques to monitor traffic and that is when initially the government has said what we are just going to look whether civil liberties have been violated. so that's an investigation were doing. but on the competition site, we don't see a need for action. and the parliament actually stepped in and the majority of parliamentarians said there was a need to step in to guarantee net neutrality by law and my political party initiated that
motion as we call it and ended up being adapted. so now, net neutrality is enshrined in law. i think what it is going to do in europe is set off a domino effect, where consumers will be curious, whether free services are denied to them, whether telecom providers are monitoring their traffic in a way that actually violates civil liberties and fundamental rights and freedoms. and so, it will be the start of a bigger discussion. in the e.u. policy circles, the commissioner for the digital agenda that james mentioned, she has already started to research or an investigation into practices of net neutrality and she is so dependent on the outcome of the research or investigation, she will take action, but she's awaiting that moment. >> host: you mention the concept of competition and consumers being able to vote
with their feet if they are not getting what they think they should be getting, they can return a different competitor. what is competition like in your country and europe? feel free to chime in. are there enough competitors to really allow consumers to go to a different service provider and receive the same amount of service? or is it limited in that way? >> guest: in theory i would say there is competition. tpm and the netherlands has about 45% of the market share. it is a previously state-run telecom provider, which has been privatized. the reason the regulator could have been is because it has no more than 50% of the market share. so that's our regulators operate. after ownership of 50% majority market share, they can step in. but was found in ours, is competitors actually deploy the same practices. and so, even though in theory
there's a choice, in practice it makes no difference. i think that is very important when we look at that neutrality, the competition is valid. nobody should want over regulation of the internet. i'm very matched against over regulating the internet. but sometimes regulation is necessary to keep the internet open. it's a different objective to safeguard competition, safeguard people's fundamental rights and freedoms from over regulating for the sake of giving government control of the internet, which is undesirable. keeping an open competition healthy is very very much desirable and the minister quite literally said the telecoms had overstepped their space. had pushed their luck and this is why this regulation was necessary. >> host: mr. elles, if you would also address jim's question. >> guest: we have rather interesting situations emerging from the top of the headlines
and broadsheets about who owns the media and why the internet comes from one specific problem and one specific newspaper is a big question about how this is going to be regulated in the future and they feel the more freedom they have in the last domination of any one particular individual organization are really good opportunity to sort this one out. the theme i would like to come back to his belt on my answer to the last question, which was on the fact that the internet is global and we see a rise of real power in the east and asia and china is often part of the debates in this country and europe. but we are trying to look at this week is to see how good the transatlantic agenda i'm dealing with some really important issues for the digital toilet cloud computing? alchemy of parameters based on freedom, on the access and a
question information infrastructure of other countries not quite so focused with this type of thing. how we get an emerging agenda will be the interest of europe and america. sometimes digital questions seemed too much one on the american side and one on the european side. the more we get a transatlantic debate going, we have a very similar approach to things, but we don't often have these kinds of debates and understanding that are interested. we very much hope you can make a real approach not just about the transatlantic, but the corporation in multilateral fora, where there is a number of internet governance and things like that, where it's really important at this particular stage, where ipv6 will get the chance for the arabian peninsula or whatever can do it in terms of language. how do you keep the multilateral system running will be a major question for us. >> host: so building on that idea because internet is a
global network and the information growing on that is growing by the day, how do you make sure -- i do handle privacy issue i guess? how do you ensure that people are using the internet as efficiently as they want to and also trusting to use the internet by protect what they are doing their personal information. in the u.k., how does the u.k. approach privacy regulation? >> guest: look at this one on the european bases on protection of intellectual property rights, prayer and the thinking of some, where we are thinking if you've got global systems, we have a transatlantic market, will you have the principle of goods, services, people and capital rights. so part of that would be an nation between the u.s. and the e.u. protecting intellectual
property rights on emerging technologies. secondly, we can coordinate e.u. to countries and protection of china as an example of that. and we can begin to make real progress on these things because i said sometimes the change is so phenomenally fast in the technological sector, where we see receive from facebook in the way in which people trust information on it. i think we should have done that because for no longer sure it's going to happen to the information when private companies on the information he can basically do what they like with it. it's an important central point to the protection of privacy and information of individuals, which i said sometimes maybe in the political world, decisions are taken, but the speed moves every time you get a piece of legislation in congress moved at a much faster pace. the more we are rare as legislatures of the picture and the more record in a position, the better we will all be off.
>> host: how would you be able to describe the corporation as far? how would you describe the coordination between the u.s. and e.u. on a lot of these internet governance issues? do you think there is a lot of parity on the things we partied in talking about? or do you think there needs to be a lot more discussion? >> guest: well, starting off in the spaces come at the internet is global and you have real risks and dangers and balances occurring over the next decades because you can see the way the trends are going. we need a much more intensified corporation on these issues. we're if you're talking about the state department to go to his list of issues, say these are the exact same issues for dealing with, but we don't have remarks at this stage to allow the right kind of people to talk with each other and the sooner we strengthen these frameworks are my point, particularly in the political community, the better. >> guest: that's necessary, but they're also differences between the e.u. and the u.s. it is not to be a problem.
i think we can be complementary and in good alliance with each other, but each has their own role to play. when we look at issues such as s.w.i.f.t., storing a financial transaction data of e.u. citizens, which are shipped in bulk to the united states to be monitored by a private entity. that leaves serious questions about democratic oversights and we see a backlash of that on the e.u. side. the other issue is that of fragmentation. james mentioned intellectual-property rights. that is indeed a very important topic, but also an area in which europe we need reforms to benefit from the opportunities that the digital environment brings to access greater amounts of audiences and actually used benefits the internet has without seeking not to take care of their creators. but we have to rebalance that. in terms of balance, i think
this always plays out almost as a rule between ovation of the u.s. and the e.u. that the u.s. tends to have a strong emphasis on security. we saw this in the war and terror. we see this again in discussions about cybersecurity, where i believe it is europe's role in also obligation to balance the freedom arguments. there is no such thing as 100% security. we may strive to seek a responsible level of security. it's our obligation to protect well-being and security of our citizens, but we also must make sure that such measures do not actually strangle what makes the internet and new technologies of such great opportunity and enhancers of freedom. the u.s. is very strong and internet freedom in the international context. secretary clinton is focusing on investing a lot in the
development of tools to circumvent censorship, filtering, blocking and help human rights defenders and basically people to freely express themselves, gain access to information, document human rights abuses. i think this is wonderful, the potential to them and opportunities also lies in and over emphases on security and allowing for very, very far-reaching measures into people's private conversations and access to information. so this nonsense crucial. on a positive note, the e.u. and the u.s. can complement each other and really help find the right balance they should definitely do that together. >> host: d.c. because of what is happening in the u.k. because of the transport issue become a strengthening of security issues when it comes to telecommunications policy in the e.u.? >> guest: well, perhaps not directly related to what is happening in the u.k., but in
general we sometimes are led to believe the internet has changed everything. but in the bases, the fundamental rights, human rights and freedoms that people are not changed and government still have to protect those. there's a lot of discussion in the u.k. of whether there is more regulation needed, whether special bodies should be developed and i think the judge and the rule of law should first do its work. there is a natural tendency, which we see out over the world to have a strong reaction when something goes wrong. the same happens in the cybersecurity discussions, but we must also learn from the past. especially in the u.s. under the back on the impact of the war terror had in the damage, when it comes to civil liberties and protection of a human race is still not solved. that balance is very, very important in the governments and
politicians like ourselves have responsibility to protect both. with new tech elegies come the difference is a lot of decision makers have difficulty understanding to the full extent how these technologies impact our societies and lives of our citizens. on top of that, the speed of development in the tech logical atmosphere are much faster than policymaking. i mean, policy moment is running behind technological developments all the time. while people talk about downloading and how to do with akamai streaming is the new thing in the next thing is looking around the corner. so i think we should work towards framework policies about which guarantee human rights and fundamental freedoms within which technologies can develop freely without us facing the need to adjust policy at each and every step because it's simply not feasible. >> host: mr. elles. >> guest: yeah, i think this is all part of a tremendous
revolution which we're living in. i mean, often people have quoted gutenberg and the press been something similar way back in the 15th century, or people of the right to print an active basis for democracy because your paper and you can use pieces of information to get people properly informed. but we have today is an extraordinary thing of having access to information at any time from their own machine of information which is doubly every day or half day or every two hours. so it becomes a question of how to prioritize information get access to information and we are in the european parliament and most of the framework, which is 500 million people, then you've got to get it right. this is one of the roles, where we work very closely in the internet education foundation and the congress we are doing
something on privacy and intellectual privacy actually so the idea is not to take sudden decisions because you get a huge pressure for lobby which comes in a glass legislature saying this is that we've got to do it. you guys don't have the slightest idea, but what we try to do is an all party approach coming to the right experts from the telecoms, software companies, all the experts to get better information and therefore get better legislation and rightly singing for your freedom of the internet so much as you can guarantee you, but you have to guarantee the rights of people said they can actually have confidence in it. confidence is extremely important. >> host: this is the stands "the communicators" program. both members of the european parliament. marietje schaake is from the netherlands and she represents the party called the alliance of liberals and democrats for europe. james elles, member of the conservative party for the u.k.
kim hart is that the "politico." >> host: you just mentioned 500 million people that you want to be connected to the internet and how about the access and benefits that come along with the internet. wireless thing sure is a big part of connectedness people in all parts of rural and remote island and so on. what is the spectrum situation like in europe as i'm sure you know, that is a big topic of conversation here with the spectrum shortage and how are we going to maximize the use of the commercially available spectrum to make local broadband more available. can you tell us about what the situation is like in europe? >> guest: well, which is worked on the report in the european parliament. i was involved with that regarding policy spectrum in europe because of a hot policy for is the same. dolby revision coming up. one of the issues necessary now is to do an assess minute for each member state of the e.u.
stands because we have countries which are economically at a different level, which have developed policies historically in different ways. so what is necessary for is to assess how the situation about spectrum is according to the same threshold so that there is an assessment. i think we must make sure that the new spectrum policy is future proof and allows for new tech elegies well of course safe guarding by the military, certain cultural players. we are well on our way to look at a more future proof basis, but also make sure that the e.u. does that is one global player and multilateral forum, which deal with but drug and were now there is 27 different voices, different systems family must really go in the direction of the global player to be competitive and clear about where we stand and make the wise
decisions. we also looked into the possibilities of being up at a more flexible with the suspect turned because for example, on the part of military and police services, some as far like a reserved for an emergency situation. some people use but drew more during the day. others more the evening. so how can we be flexible and make sure we use the capacity we have and that people can have their fair share and that we do move along with the speed of technological development. >> guest: on that subject, last friday my district a major company had a network operation is precisely you can see on the graphics of what people downloading stuff and thoroughly do so much on the weeks and the vacancy you can see the paths of people's habits becomes through the use of downloading and streamlining of streaming information. what struck window here was that
spectrum, if you like states here, wald technology has changed. i am told by the mobile operators that lots of people download -- children and adults, but perhaps more downloading videos. of course that is huge capacity that overloads the system. if you try to get broad and downloads in my area, which is quite a civilized area in europe and britain -- i live in a place i don't have a mobile signal. most people have broadband speed it takes about 15 minutes to download a page. i mean, this is something that comes back to a comment earlier about digital infrastructure. it's really important for small businesses to be able to do this. there's a figure out their year ago that if we invested 15 billion euros, about
$12 billion if i've got the correction right -- maybe $20 billion, 15 to $20 billion budgeted for mobile and broadband company probably create something over half a million jobs because of the small businesses, which need to be connected, but depending if they can get a signal for a download speed if they're not working at a time when everyone else is doing things. so i think that here it's really important and that's where the discussions will come as to whether mobile operator should contribute to be able to put in some money with public money to make sure everybody gets coverage. if you have the internet and it allows you to be a consumer and therefore have some dominant over the information you get, it is bizarre -- it's like buying a car and not having the road. if you have a mobile company to use it and at any part in the system you are. >> host: following up on something you just said in terms
of how whether a private company will combine with public money to be able to build this out, had you incentivize private companies and wireless companies to really invest in networks and make sure people are receiving the speeds that are more viable for business users and personal use? >> guest: the american said it having a large amount of money, my senses the companies are prepared to do that so they can be economically justify up, they pay less into the treasury and taxes. so i mean, the money goes around in a way that it is to generate business, allow people to invest and that's what we have to realize in a global system. can i share a short story. i saw two months back you decide i can't get broadband and stuff. you are not to new delhi, to india. he said good lord, there's people washing clothes and i'd never stay here, but